Sorry but the rules have changed. The British Standard on tree work is effectively superceded in that the High Hedges act requires the reduction of a tree within a hedge that would override any normal protection to the tree. The "Hortlink" project by BRE investigated pruning in 2006 and recommended 60% height reduction and 90% canopy pruning every 2/3 years as a way of reducing moisture uptake.

The object of the act was to prevent long expensive neighbour disputes. The idea of thinning the trees and inserting bamboos is totally contrary to the spirit of the act and would almost cetainly lead to long running and expensive legal action. I am equally sure that a competant lawyer somewhere is ready and willing to show that bamboo is "evergreen" and if grown tall would be treated as a hedge.

I think that with an ASBO in the offing John has to play by the rules.

best regards

Alan Harris

Alan is a consulting engineer specialising in subsidence, tree roots, soils and party wall surveying.

There isn't, and never has been, a maximum 30% reduction that can be removed. The Council can require any amount of reduction as long as it does not kill the tree. Whether a tree/hedge will die as a result of a 10% reduction, or survive a 90% reduction will depend on many things, and none of them are written standards or reports. Phased reductions are often used where a significant amount needs to be removed which, if it was removed in one go, might destroy the hedge.

Believing that removing every other tree in the hedge to create gaps and therefore have individual trees to avoid a high hedge complaint just won't work. A hedge, for the purposes of the Act is a row of evergreen trees or shrubs. It doesn't matter that they coalesce, or that they are 30m apart, they are a hedge about which a neighbour can complain.

Bamboo's come both as deciduous and evergreens. The problem even the must competent, erudite, experienced, and qualified lawyer would have is not proving that a particular species of bamboo is evergreen. It would be proving that bamboos are actually trees or shrubs. In fact they are grasses, and grasses are not trees or shrubs. Therefore, they cannot form a hedge for the purposes of the Act.

TO wrote:A hedge, for the purposes of the Act is a row of evergreen trees or shrubs. It doesn't matter that they coalesce, or that they are 30m apart they are a hedge about which a neighbour can complain.

here's the statutory definition from the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003:

(1)In this Part “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as—(a)is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and(b)rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.(3)In this section “evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub.to clarify, you might like to call a row of evergreens planted 30m apart a "hedge" - that's your prerogative - but they're not a "high hedge" for the purposes of the act unless they form a barrier to light or access at >2m heights.

So if the rules on hedges and trees has been altered what does that really mean if a neighbour has a 20foot high hedge blocking light to a large % of a garden and stripping moisture from the soil making growing anything difficult

and the same for a very large tree that for most of the year casts a garden in shadow never mind again being unable to grow anything because the soil is parched

Sorry but the rules have changed. The British Standard on tree work is effectively superceded in that the High Hedges act requires the reduction of a tree within a hedge that would override any normal protection to the tree. The "Hortlink" project by BRE investigated pruning in 2006 and recommended 60% height reduction and 90% canopy pruning every 2/3 years as a way of reducing moisture uptake.

best regards

Alan Harris

You're talking about different scenarios, one is about roots and their effects, the other is about foliage and its effects.

There was some research that was widely debunked because it was based on flawed data.

If you want a Good screen then bamboo, bamboo, bamboo is the real answer in this situation. They are grasses and not even a smart lawyer will be able to bring them into the remit of high hedge legislation as it currently stands. Even the 60 metre giant bamboo can be planted. Once established the Culms (canes, reach full height in a single growing season and then increase in girth in successive years. Regular maintenance is a must.

Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 Part 8 states

66High hedges(1)In this Part “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as—(a)is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and(b)rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.(3)In this section “evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub.

Is this the appropriate use of ASBOs? An ASBO is to protect the public from harrassment, alarm and distress.

The offending behaviour must have been carried out since 1999. I assume that these trees were in place before 1999. Can an ASBO be used against somebody who has NOT doing something? And anyway, I don't think they are called ASBOs any more.

I suggest that the LA's threat to use an ASBO could be construed as "causing harrassment, alarm, and distress".